I think this may fit the definition of irony, that people, who just may eventually be hunted by drones, are trying to get licenses to hunt the drones, while the drones that hunt them, do not need any license, because the people have already given the government enough power to ensure both: that they eventually can be hunted by drones (and no license required) and that they can't actually get a license to protect themselves.

People fishing for their OWN food would never make this happen. Overfishing/over hunting is due to sport and due to commercial enterprise. If you only kill what you eat there's no possible way for you to decimate a population as you suggest.

Please show me any documentation that a population of people hunting/fishing for their own food and nothing more has destroyed an animal population. Theoretically it is possible for species that have a long gestation period and low offspring count but evidence that it happens just isn't available. In instances I know of there were several other factors involved, such as disease or introduction of other species (not just humans) that drove animals away or to extinction.

Better a few people starve to death now than entire population starve to death later, just because some idiots couldn't understand that eating the last animal on the island will mean no more animals ever.

That's why I commandeered any vehicle using my driveway to turn around. The police disagreed and shut down my chop-shop though. Evidently something does not become my property just from being in contact with my property. Fascists.

they did get sued. and people still do it (sue) too, though the courts have held that there's basically a threshold value above which its essentially an airborne highway and a public commodity.

but below that value though, and especially if its close enough to cause problems to the land owner (such as an ultralight flying right above a chicken coup, or scattering a cattle herd), there can be legal repercussions.

News at 11 - Bob Fink blew up the house of his best friend John Ackers today in Deer Trail after mistaking him for a CIA drone. John Ackers mistook Bob's missile as a terrorist attack and blew up Deer Trail's only Mosques in retaliation.

"Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane." I thought manned airplanes flew at high altitude over my house because I WAS allowed to shoot at them. The trailer parks is getting to be a real drag.

I have never understood the hatred and mistrust placed on drones versus aircraft, fixed or rotary wing. It seems like a bunch of Luddites. Drones are cheaper, safer, and usually more capable at doing the task at hand than fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft at doing a job thats already been done for decades by law enforcement and the military. Also a drone, in the military at least, allows for a more calm and collected engagement of targets, reducing collateral damage and fratricide.

No problem. Get a license to fly that thing over there where you have to state a reason and have the county/city permit it. Make the government do the same. Pass a law that it may not be used to stalk or harass anyone (or why should you be allowed to fly a drone over your ex' house to see who she dates now?). Make records public of who obtained such a license and for what purpose.

That would already be enough to make sure my paranoia sleeps well tonight.

How you can fear intelligence gathering and drones more than destroyers, jets, tanks, and rifles borders on the insane.

What the fuck do drones have to do with oppression?

Clearly you missed the news about the unmanned drones killing people in Pakistan and the US Government's indicated williingness to use them to kill US citizens within the USA with no judicial oversight.

I have never understood the hatred and mistrust placed on drones versus aircraft,

I think the issue is that is much easier to push the 'fire' button when it all looks like a videogame, compared to being in a plane/helicopter as a human pushing the button.With America heading toward corporate fascism, there will be a big need to 'protect the citizens from the nasty terrorist protestors'. Drones have scalability, and the 20yr old kids will think it's just like a video game.

I actually personally know a number of drone operators and its not a "just push a button" type scenario. Weapons release requires a significant amount of authorization, ranging from commanders in the field to lawyers in the pentagon. There is up to a dozen people in the chain of command that are all required to say "yes" to engage targets.

The reason they have the luxury is because it is a drone and not a pilot over enemy territory (this is in operations that occur in "areas" not recognized, where the country letting them do the drone strikes doesn't particularly want it known to their general population). A fighter pilot has a lot more stress, and they are more prone to making bad decisions because of the many more immediate constraints on their judgment.

Do drones allow these types of attacks to occur more easily? Probably, but on the other hand they'd probably be executed in some form or fashion either way (cruise missile strikes, which are far more prone to failure in target selection, or human operations, aka spec-ops or hired guns/foreign service).

Thanks for your comments, and no offence intended to your drone friends. That chain of command may be in operation now, but if there is mass civil unrest, requiring 'thousands of drones', this authority could be curtailed to just the drone operator... or even more scary, computer AI.

Do drones allow these types of attacks to occur more easily? Probably, but on the other hand they'd probably be executed in some form or fashion either way

That's not the other hand. That's an orthogonal issue. A serious one to be sure, but still a separate one. The problem with drones is not that they enable us to kill people, you can do that with a rock. With sufficient planning, you can do it with a rock remotely. But drones are a "game changer" or if you like, paradigm shift (*runsaway*) because it makes killing both cheap and easy. It ultimately is a "just push a button" scenario. There might be some discussion before the button pushing, but in the end, y

And now you know why the guillotine was invented -- the mass execution needed some efficiency improvements. Sure, it hasn't kept up with the times and even more efficient methods have been invented as a result.

Related to what you said, IMO the problem with using drones for execution is that it makes it easier. By easier I specifically mean:

1. quicker -- just a few phone calls to get authorization? no need to select, equip and deploy a special ops team?

There are also hunters who want to use a drone with a gun mounted on it to take game. A suppose that if we allow hunting by helicopter we might as well allow hunting with a drone. The oops factor might be fun to watch. Can a drone identify a safety orange hunting vest?

For the same reason that it is OK to fire a cruise missile at a target, but not OK to use an unmanned drone to kill the same target...

Most people are pissy about the idea of the government constantly watching them. They find the idea of any aircraft flying overhead at low altitudes taking pictures of them sun bathing nude in their backyard creepy (though if more people did that I bet the program would stop cause have you been to Wal-Mart?). It's just that no one worries about the government using manned a

why the fuck does putting a corporate logo on something make it better than a government label?

And you do realize the government intercepts and uses all the face tags on facebook right? It is why the government lets them pay 0 taxes. You've been voluntarily working for them (the government) giving/classifying information for years.

I call bullshit on this AC post. If you're flying UAVs for a living and don't understand the concept of total system expense, you're speaking outside of your pay grade. You've either just started flying UAVs or you are deliberately ignoring a lot of factors that must be considered when discussing cost. Safety to the pilots and ground crew is an obvious factor that you're either overlooking or don't understand. If it's the second, you shouldn't be flying UAVs (which I suspect you're not).

The license, if it existed, would exempt you from being fined by the city for unlicensed shooting of a drone. The owner of the drones, particularly if the owner of the drones is the state or federal government, will not be so nice. As a joke, it's funny. People taking it seriously, believing it offers some legal protection, are delusional. It's like doing a search-and-seizure on your neighbor with a badge from a Cracker Jack box.

Does your solution to everything have to be shoot / bomb it? Surely you guys can be more creative - EMP, Deathray. signal jammer / spoofer, hack the drone maybe I dunno... There's got to be better ways of bringing down machines than technology that's been around since the Song Dynasty in China (960 - 1279).

" There's got to be better ways of bringing down machines than technology that's been around since the Song Dynasty in China (960 - 1279)."

Of course there is. It's just that shooting them down is both more fun and provides a sense of direct connection with the termination. People don't shoot things because it's the only solution, but the one that provides the most entertainment in the process.

I don't think anybody likes drones except perhaps the people who build them. However, I'm really upset with the idiots who even think about pointing a weapon up in the sky -- or aiming a laser, for that matter -- in a misguided attempt to fight the spread of drones. There are *people* flying overhead all the time in aircraft both small and large, and there's no way to tell which aircraft is manned and which isn't even if you want to do something stupid. There's a federal death penalty for anyone interfering with an aircraft (or "related facilities") that results in death, so this is serious stuff. I don't like it when people go duck hunting without being careful not to point their weapons anywhere near a family cruising along in their Cessna. If you want to fight the spread of drones then do it in ways that won't get people hurt or killed -- resulting in more drones, probably. Defund them, prevent them from being based in or launched from your community or state, boycott their manufacturers and affiliates, tax them heavily, make their owners/operators/manufacturers personally liable for the worst torts imaginable, and/or whatever. But for the sake of the people up in the skies, please, please don't even think about shooting at them.

Exactly. Has anyone actually thought about what might happen if you are actually able to shoot one from the sky? A drone is a small aircraft. Do you really want that falling in your neighborhood? If people start actually shooting them from the skies, it won't be long before some innocent people on the ground are killed by falling parts or the whole aircraft itself. Shooting them is about the most stupid thing you can do, ever. How about voting the idiots out of office who are supporting them in the first pl

It isn't actually all that hard to tell a drone from a manned vehicle using a half decent scope. It would be irresponsible to shoot one down in a neighborhood or urban setting (where discharging a gun is also illegal), but if it's flying over an empty field, human safety isn't a problem.

I haven't seen any reports ever of an aircraft being shot by hunters. Perhaps it has happened, but I'd think it would make the news.

I don't think anybody likes drones except perhaps the people who build them. However, I'm really upset with the idiots who even think about pointing a weapon up in the sky -- or aiming a laser, for that matter -- in a misguided attempt to fight the spread of drones. There are *people* flying overhead all the time in aircraft both small and large, and there's no way to tell which aircraft is manned and which isn't

If can tell the species of duck I'm calling at several hundred yards, I'm pretty sure that I can tell a Predator from a Cessna Skyhawk from an A300, you insensitive clod.

I don't like it when people go duck hunting without being careful not to point their weapons anywhere near a family cruising along in their Cessna.

OK, now you're just being fucking stupid. Duck hunters shoot down Cessna's? When? I've never hunted Cessna's but I can tell you for sure that a load of #4 steel shot isn't going to bring one down.

I don't like it when people go duck hunting without being careful not to point their weapons anywhere near a family cruising along in their Cessna.

Unless that Cessna is flying extremely close (~50 m) to the ground, anyone hunting duck won't be able to hurt it. Birdshot loses velocity to air resistance very quickly. If they are going to fly that low, they really ought to avoid areas where people are shooting into the air.

We discussed this the last time this article came up. You're not going to hit a drone with a shotgun and shooting into the air with a solid bullet is stupid and dangerous (and you'll have a ridiculous time hitting an aircraft, anyway).

"Even if a tiny percentage of people get online (for a) drone license, that's cool. That's a lot of money to a small town like us,"said Boyd

The funny thing here is that the FAA in all their "seriousness" has become the PR department, for free. The FAA's own Altitude Rules [aerolegalservices.com] pretty much would keep aircraft above the area covered by the town's "Rules of Engagement".

I've seen lots of comments about, "This is stupid, and can't possibly be legal." That said, legality of shooting down drones is irrelevant: this is about people who are willing to pay money to make sure drones aren't harassing Americans. I'd pay $25 for that. It's too bad it's not more money. For about $10bn., you could buy enough votes to actually start to change something.

The license includes but is not limited to government property. Read the actual proposal. [deertrailcolorado.com]

Unmanned aerial vehicle. Below 1000 feet. Most people can't determine the altitude of a passing aircraft. The local airport gets calls from people all the time about pilots who are allegedly buzzing the city "too low", but radar shows they were quite legal (above 1000'). Some of these aircraft are ones like this [wikipedia.org], which is hard to tell is manned from a distance.

Personally, I'm all for being allowed to down planes flying lower than 1000 feet (with a grace area around airports since, well, they somehow have to get there). Anywhere else, they simply have no business flying lower.

I had to look him up, I didn't realize the chair of the science committee was a complete wackadoo.

Doesn't believe in meteors or dinosaurs... Well a dinosaur might not come crashing though your house {aka extinct} but meteorites are common... I actually make time for my kids and I to watch meteor showers when we know they are going to happen.